I just seems to me that people in general are looking for much more from gold than what they should expect over the long term. While I'm positive there is blatant manipulation of gold pricing in the short term - the predictable saw-tooth market to after market effects, and the occasional central and big bank collusion to bring the price down - the long term trend is gradually but consistently UP.As a quick hitting investment it is a poor choice - the to-da-moon folks will not be very happy very often. As a wealth life preserver against economic and social upheaval (inflation, poor economic policies, conflicts, inept government) it is an excellent non-sunk-cost insurance policy to counter the inflationary deterioration of any currency.Relative to the USD, petrodollar, various cryptos, Yuan, etc. which have their stakes 'firmly' embedded in sand, the gold stake is the Excalibur sword in rock.

"You have a choice between the natural stability of gold, and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. Vote for Gold."........ George Bernard Shaw

BotanicusRex wrote:I just seems to me that people in general are looking for much more from gold than what they should expect over the long term. While I'm positive there is blatant manipulation of gold pricing in the short term - the predictable saw-tooth market to after market effects, and the occasional central and big bank collusion to bring the price down - the long term trend is gradually but consistently UP.

I agree with everything here, except your last sentence. That depends on your time horizon. Since 2011, the trend has been down. That is over 6 years now. Go back 10 or 20 years and your statement is accurate. I'd be inclined to say that the closer relationship is that the price of gold closely tracks the price of oil - at least while gold isn't in use as a monetary medium of exchange anyway.

BotanicusRex wrote:As a quick hitting investment it is a poor choice - the to-da-moon folks will not be very happy very often. As a wealth life preserver against economic and social upheaval (inflation, poor economic policies, conflicts, inept government) it is an excellent non-sunk-cost insurance policy to counter the inflationary deterioration of any currency.Relative to the USD, petrodollar, various cryptos, Yuan, etc. which have their stakes 'firmly' embedded in sand, the gold stake is the Excalibur sword in rock.

This is where the disagreement becomes larger. You mention inflationary currencies - but bitcoin is inherently deflationary on purpose. Additionally, I think your analogy is almost too good. Because while the elitists are able to manipulate the gold price with naked shorts, rehypothecation, etc it truly is a sword STUCK in stone and unable to be wielded against the elites who are stealing from the masses with their fiat.

Don't know don't really care, just want to be out of the way when/if it hits. I don't have an allegiance to btc the only thing about btc that would cause it to fail is the humans who fight for it like its some sort of religion. Linus Torvalds did for corps/business/entreprenuers (windows, closed source technology) what Satoshi Nakamoto did for small investors. The biggest difference is the governance model which everyone is fighting for power.

I've been pretty bad at predictions, but in terms of tech. There's better tech out there. Sticking with brandname for the sake of first mover advantage is like sticking with Sony walkmans because you don't like Apple iphones without a headphone jack. Eventually, the better tech wins with the most usage. This is where it conflicts between technology, sociology, and economics, and politics. Technology likes to move forward fast. Politics likes to move slow. Economics and sociology are how we fight to speed up or slow down progress. IMO btc dominance won't last after the fork. People are in for the fork for more bitcoins, not because they believe bitcoin is the best technology. That said, its frigging amazing. $10k maybe.. i'll hold onto some just in case.

silverpv wrote:Sticking with brandname for the sake of first mover advantage is like sticking with Sony walkmans because you don't like Apple iphones without a headphone jack. Eventually, the better tech wins with the most usage.

Good analogy, but it doesn't apply to Bitcoin. The Walkman was a mainstream device with a large number of users. Most people have never heard of Bitcoin, but with the infrastructure that is being built, they soon will. The day may come where another coin becomes the leader, but that isn't going to happen for a number of years.

The CME announced today they are starting a Bitcoin futures exchange by the end of the year. IF, they can pass the regulatory hurdles. I don't know how big an if that is but I think if the CME is in, it has officially hit mainstream.

I'm very guarded in my opinion of this, knowing how the CME plays the game. This could be good or it could be bad if they play the manipulation game. The more mainstream finance gets involved, the scarder I get on the one hand. On the other hand, if big money securities buyers start buying, the price could skyrocket even more than it has.

Being happy is like peeing your pants. Everyone can see it, but no one can feel the warmth except you.

silverpv wrote:Sticking with brandname for the sake of first mover advantage is like sticking with Sony walkmans because you don't like Apple iphones without a headphone jack. Eventually, the better tech wins with the most usage.

Good analogy, but it doesn't apply to Bitcoin. The Walkman was a mainstream device with a large number of users. Most people have never heard of Bitcoin, but with the infrastructure that is being built, they soon will. The day may come where another coin becomes the leader, but that isn't going to happen for a number of years.

We'll see. technology vs. principle is different. The infra that's being built for bitcoin isn't meant for high volume tx. It's meant for large transfers of wealth, so the only thing that will keep it of high value is principle and people who believe in that principle. The only thing I question, is whether just like old high grade Morgans is if kids today will pay the premium for something that is newer, cheaper, and works better than the incumbent, like moderns. Unless the people behind you accept the same value, people will shift to alternatives with less political BS. Perhaps leadership isn't such a bad thing when decentralization leads to squabbles. Who knows. If you notice the people creating the altcoins are younger than the btc enthusiasts. It's a question, i don't know the answer to but it's just an observation. I'm in my late 30's and i'm already feeling old in the altcoin space. It's so ironic and sad. lol

And here is his conclusion: "So although I am a bitcoin skeptic, I believe there is a great future for the blockchain technology behind them."

To me, this conclusion makes little sense. It would be like concluding after the invention of the automobile... "I believe there is a great future for the automotive technology, but I am a skeptic of Ford Motors."

Why would one be a skeptic of a first mover who invented the tech, with the largest network, most infrastructure, greatest value, most development, most thoroughly tested blockchain, and on, and on?

Unless of course Rickards really means he believes in the technology of blockchain, but wants governments or corporations to take it over and use the tech for centralized (permissioned), uses and thereby take away the greatest feature of the tech.

To continue the analogy, it would be like saying you like the tech behind the internal combustion engine, but want to limit the top speed of a vehicle to go no faster than a trotting horse. It makes no sense.

And here is his conclusion: "So although I am a bitcoin skeptic, I believe there is a great future for the blockchain technology behind them."

To me, this conclusion makes little sense. It would be like concluding after the invention of the automobile... "I believe there is a great future for the automotive technology, but I am a skeptic of Ford Motors."

Why would one be a skeptic of a first mover who invented the tech, with the largest network, most infrastructure, greatest value, most development, most thoroughly tested blockchain, and on, and on?

Unless of course Rickards really means he believes in the technology of blockchain, but wants governments or corporations to take it over and use the tech for centralized (permissioned), uses and thereby take away the greatest feature of the tech.

To continue the analogy, it would be like saying you like the tech behind the internal combustion engine, but want to limit the top speed of a vehicle to go no faster than a trotting horse. It makes no sense.

Hey Doger:

Love your writing style.

Is it possible Rickards isn't skeptical of "Ford Motors" (Bitcoin the company) but of the Tin Lizzy they created? Tried and true, reliable, everyman's car. Admittedly, I know little but understand bitcoin is slow, really slow to transact with especially compared to say a credit card transaction. I'm still playing catch up with all the other cyber currencies but they are exploding in number. One at least claims to be secure and many times faster to transact with than btc and is intended to be used on a much smaller scale. Reminds me of the mutual fund market that went from Fidelity Magellan and Twentieth Century Select as your only choices to more than the total number of stocks out there.

A lot of the mutual funds that came after were great in focusing the investment into specific niches. And now we even have ETFs. So there is easily something for everyone. I'm seeing cyber currencies similar but understand the technology less than I do investment vehicles. I think Rickards may be thinking similar when he says the "technology behind them". The Tin Lizzy btc may still be a great car but there now seem to be more specific and detailed technology out there that will work better than btc in various applications. Certainly there are some cyber currencies that are way flashier.

Edited to add: Just got the idea for a cyber currencies index/ETF. Fashioned after the SPX or Vanguards VOO. Don't need to understand the technology behind the currencies just the investment vehicle. This would be very appealing to me, a technotard who wants to get involved in the currencies but can't keep up with the industry the way these Young mathematical minded, decentralized thinking Bucks can. Risk spread by owning a piece of all the majors and more promising minors on a weighted basis. What a no brainer.

Is there such an animal yet? I think I'm going to give Vanguard a call.

Brick

“Rationality belongs to the cool observer, but because of the stupidity of the average man, he follows not reason, but faith, and the naive faith requires necessary illusion and emotionally potent oversimplifications which are provided by the myth-maker to keep ordinary person on course.”

And here is his conclusion: "So although I am a bitcoin skeptic, I believe there is a great future for the blockchain technology behind them."

To me, this conclusion makes little sense. It would be like concluding after the invention of the automobile... "I believe there is a great future for the automotive technology, but I am a skeptic of Ford Motors."

Why would one be a skeptic of a first mover who invented the tech, with the largest network, most infrastructure, greatest value, most development, most thoroughly tested blockchain, and on, and on?

Unless of course Rickards really means he believes in the technology of blockchain, but wants governments or corporations to take it over and use the tech for centralized (permissioned), uses and thereby take away the greatest feature of the tech.

To continue the analogy, it would be like saying you like the tech behind the internal combustion engine, but want to limit the top speed of a vehicle to go no faster than a trotting horse. It makes no sense.

Hey Doger:

Love your writing style.

Is it possible Rickards isn't skeptical of "Ford Motors" (Bitcoin the company) but of the Tin Lizzy they created? Tried and true, reliable, everyman's car. Admittedly, I know little but understand bitcoin is slow, really slow to transact with especially compared to say a credit card transaction. I'm still playing catch up with all the other cyber currencies but they are exploding in number. One at least claims to be secure and many times faster to transact with than btc and is intended to be used on a much smaller scale. Reminds me of the mutual fund market that went from Fidelity Magellan and Twentieth Century Select as your only choices to more than the total number of stocks out there.

A lot of the mutual funds that came after were great in focusing the investment into specific niches. And now we even have ETFs. So there is easily something for everyone. I'm seeing cyber currencies similar but understand the technology less than I do investment vehicles. I think Rickards may be thinking similar when he says the "technology behind them". The Tin Lizzy btc may still be a great car but there now seem to be more specific and detailed technology out there that will work better than btc in various applications. Certainly there are some cyber currencies that are way flashier.

Edited to add: Just got the idea for a cyber currencies index/ETF. Fashioned after the SPX or Vanguards VOO. Don't need to understand the technology behind the currencies just the investment vehicle. This would be very appealing to me, a technotard who wants to get involved in the currencies but can't keep up with the industry the way these Young mathematical minded, decentralized thinking Bucks can. Risk spread by owning a piece of all the majors and more promising minors on a weighted basis. What a no brainer.

Is there such an animal yet? I think I'm going to give Vanguard a call.

Brick

Thanks. The beauty of Rickard's conclusion is that it is so ambiguous that he can twist it to mean just about anything down the road and be considered "right" based on some new data. I guess that is one way to sell books.

Here is the beauty of crypto. We can scale up and scale down the features that are most important to us as individual users. Do you value speed of transaction most? Try Dash, PIVX or LTC. Do you value privacy most? Use XMR (Monero). Do you value liquidity, storage of value, historical crypto precedent? Use bitcoin. Do you value micro-transactions? Use Dogecoin. Do you value security above all else? Use QRL (in 1Q 2018). The nice thing is that one day soon we will be able to handle all this in a single, easy-to-use wallet and it will be automated for us. You won't buy a coffee with BTC. But you can hold your wealth with it, and then when you are at Starbucks ready to make that purchase, your wallet will figure out which crypto is best to convert automatically to buy that coffee, and it will be done in seconds. Currently, this is a manual process, but it still isn't hard.

But none of this all happens without bitcoin. People discover crypto through bitcoin. The network effects of bitcoin are immense. So for him to say he is skeptical on bitcoin, basically tells me that he isn't really immersed in the crypto space but has some minimal knowledge of how the crypto space works.

There are several hedge funds that are attempting what you are referring to. TaaS is one I'm familiar with. In fact, this very idea is why I am interested in CoinDash (CDT). The beauty with CDT is that it isn't a hedge fund, but any individual person can say - here is my history of trades (as shown on the blockchain), and then you can "follow" that person and piggyback their trades automatically. So a proven winner can gain a bunch of followers and make money through his trades and through his following. It isn't fully live yet though.

Why not use Bitcoin for a cup of Starbucks? The fact that a Bitcoin is worth $7500 (today) shouldn't be a problem because it is divisible to the eighth decimal place, and Starbucks ain't cheap. The problem is rather the speed of confirmation? Even granting that Bitcoin will always be slow, which is not necessarily true, can't the delay be dealt with by a card backed by a Bitcoin balance? I mean, that's how credit and debit cards work. The money isn't actually shifted to the merchant instantly, rather the promise of it is instant. It can take hours or even days before they actually get their money into their account.

Long John wrote:Why not use Bitcoin for a cup of Starbucks? The fact that a Bitcoin is worth $7500 (today) shouldn't be a problem because it is divisible to the eighth decimal place, and Starbucks ain't cheap. The problem is rather the speed of confirmation? Even granting that Bitcoin will always be slow, which is not necessarily true, can't the delay be dealt with by a card backed by a Bitcoin balance? I mean, that's how credit and debit cards work. The money isn't actually shifted to the merchant instantly, rather the promise of it is instant. It can take hours or even days before they actually get their money into their account.

The current reason is mostly due to transaction fees. It is costing me between $4 - $5 in bitcoin to send a transaction. So buying a $4 coffee doesn't make sense if I have to pay that kind of fee. Now with lightning networks, segwit, and other potential scaling solutions that could one day change and decrease fees, but as of this point - fees are the limiting factor for small scale purchases.

I was going to address all 6 of his points, but then I saw that the first comment at the bottom of the article already did a great job. So those comments, by Tom Mornini, are posted below with my commentary [in brackets]

> The definition of “fiat money” is a currency that is legal tender but not backed by a physical commodity

> And while total supply is artificially constrained, that constraint is just... well, artificial.

No, it's [bitcoin] constrained by consensus, whereas the supply of gold is entirely unconstrained. Only 30% of the Earth's surface has been mined for gold, but robotic undersea mining is just beginning to happen. It's safe to expect the supply of gold to nearly triple in the next 50 years. [unsure about this claim about gold]

> Lack of Security Undermines Cryptocurrencies’ Effectiveness

The Bitcoin security issue you're describing isn't a Bitcoin security issue at all, it's an example of how granting custody of your wealth to a third party is a bad idea.

Bitcoin, like physical gold in hand, doesn't require custodial handling, yet can still be transacted electronically, a huge benefit -vs- gold in hand. Also, it can be transacted in large quantities, small quantities, face to face and at a great distance with identical security and ease.

> Hype and Speculation Continue to Drive Cryptocurrencies’ Value

Prove it. I believe it's valuable because it's the best money ever. [speculation does drive some of the price, so what. does that mean bitcoin has no value? ]

> Cryptocurrencies Do Not Have Gold’s History as a Store of Value

Sure, just like email didn't have the postal system's history of message delivery.

> Crypto will be wiped out, especially if the US creates its own private crypto & outlaws all others

[If this were to happen, that the USD is gone, and the US operates its own crypto and actually outlaws all other forms of private voluntary exchange between two parties - I would leave the US. It would no longer be the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.]

One of the arguments against bitcoin and crypto is in regards to Gresham's Law - that bad money chases out good money and therefore people won't spend their crypto and therefore market adoption won't actually happen. The argument seems to hold weight, but this article dismantles it a bit.

While silver coinage vanished, the reason was due to its face value. You didn't get the full silver value if you spent it for face value. So it was hoarded. But the free market is setting prices in crypto, not legal tender laws. If I were a vendor, I would offer a discount to anyone paying with crypto - at first to help with adoption of it. But eventually it would be because I would rather be paid in crypto anyways. And if I would rather be paid in crypto, and a customer gets a discount for paying as such, it is a win-win.

SilverDoge wrote:Gold to bitcoin ratio now at 4.5 to 1. I think around 10:1 I will trade a bitcoin for 10 ounces of gold. We'll see though. I may change my mind before then.

That would be a very interesting day. I wonder what Peter Schiff and those gold bugs will say when the ratio reaches 1 BTC : 10 beautiful gold coins.

They would probably say, "If there is anyone crazy enough to give me ten 1 oz gold coins for a bitcoin please form a line to the right".

Bitcoin is an interesting currency concept but as an investment it is tulips I believe. Gold on the other hand is, well, gold. Time will tell.

10 ounces of gold coins now coming to me for the steep price of 1 bitcoin.

I really don't want this to come off as bragging, but it is such a proud day in my crypto life. While I envisioned this happening one day, I did not think it would happen in 2017. Remember that I am long both PMs and crypto - and I am thrilled to own some extra gold. I needed to level off my crypto holdings a bit anyway and get some gold so that is what I did today. Thanks APMEX!

I might look stupid in 2 weeks if/when the futures markets take bitcoin to $20k - but I would be fine with that happening too.

SilverDoge wrote:Gold to bitcoin ratio now at 4.5 to 1. I think around 10:1 I will trade a bitcoin for 10 ounces of gold. We'll see though. I may change my mind before then.

That would be a very interesting day. I wonder what Peter Schiff and those gold bugs will say when the ratio reaches 1 BTC : 10 beautiful gold coins.

They would probably say, "If there is anyone crazy enough to give me ten 1 oz gold coins for a bitcoin please form a line to the right".

Bitcoin is an interesting currency concept but as an investment it is tulips I believe. Gold on the other hand is, well, gold. Time will tell.

10 ounces of gold coins now coming to me for the steep price of 1 bitcoin.

I really don't want this to come off as bragging, but it is such a proud day in my crypto life. While I envisioned this happening one day, I did not think it would happen in 2017. Remember that I am long both PMs and crypto - and I am thrilled to own some extra gold. I needed to level off my crypto holdings a bit anyway and get some gold so that is what I did today. Thanks APMEX!

I might look stupid in 2 weeks if/when the futures markets take bitcoin to $20k - but I would be fine with that happening too.

Congratulations.To me it's amazing that anyone (on the gold side) would make a trade like that... but that's just my old-school crypto-skeptic mind working. Maybe it IS different this time. At any rate, congrats... and you are very wise to keep putting chips on all the squares.

"You have a choice between the natural stability of gold, and the honesty and intelligence of the members of government. Vote for Gold."........ George Bernard Shaw

SilverDoge wrote:Gold to bitcoin ratio now at 4.5 to 1. I think around 10:1 I will trade a bitcoin for 10 ounces of gold. We'll see though. I may change my mind before then.

That would be a very interesting day. I wonder what Peter Schiff and those gold bugs will say when the ratio reaches 1 BTC : 10 beautiful gold coins.

They would probably say, "If there is anyone crazy enough to give me ten 1 oz gold coins for a bitcoin please form a line to the right".

Bitcoin is an interesting currency concept but as an investment it is tulips I believe. Gold on the other hand is, well, gold. Time will tell.

10 ounces of gold coins now coming to me for the steep price of 1 bitcoin.

I really don't want this to come off as bragging, but it is such a proud day in my crypto life. While I envisioned this happening one day, I did not think it would happen in 2017. Remember that I am long both PMs and crypto - and I am thrilled to own some extra gold. I needed to level off my crypto holdings a bit anyway and get some gold so that is what I did today. Thanks APMEX!

I might look stupid in 2 weeks if/when the futures markets take bitcoin to $20k - but I would be fine with that happening too.

congrats +1

"SAUSAGE FLAVORED MEAT PELLETS, GRADE D BUT EDIBLE""Better 1 or 2 years early than 1 day late"